Yeah this would be some great environmental lore in fallout. You find the shelter and inside are two skeletons and a ton of unopened can food. No can opener though. Evidence of a fight. Maybe a note about how stupid Harold is/was.
wetbeardhairs
joined 1 week ago
I do feel a dom/sub relationship with Linux right now as I try to build some flatpaks - so that is very fitting.
Which is fucking ridiculous because THEY ALREADY HAD THAT TRUST! We had this thing called.. what was it? ALLIES! They bought our military hardware by the tens of billions each year!
Boot went so far up your ass it came out the other end and then you licked it clean
I heard a quote recently from that Mendicus Moldbug shitbird.
It's easy to convince someone of the truth. But to make them believe a falsehood is useful because they can then wear their belief as a uniform. This is how you build an army. [sic idgaf]
So I know Luigi probably did it. But I believe he is innocent.
You should use this moment as a pivot point and ask yourself if WOW is good for your mental health before you choose to continue or not.
He added that the White House is contemplating the idea of creating an “ecosystem of trust” to facilitate adoption of new U.S. technologies.
They've got a loooong fucking way to go on that.
Apparently the wealthy couldn't keep us under control by threatening homelessness, starvation and loss of healthcare - now they have to threaten to fucking deport us if we don't bend the knee to their miniature dictatorships.
There might be a difference between then and now.
It's like what Mendicus Moldbug said.
It's easy to make someone believe the truth. But to make them believe a falsehood is useful. Because then those people can wear their belief as a uniform.
We just have to believe that he didn't kill that CEO while simultaneously and surreptitiously knowing he did. That is our uniform. That makes us an army.
I wonder how many guns are named Luigi by their owners now.
view more: next ›
I think the best recourse is to flip the script about what is non-negotiable. I think the best answer is to instead weaponize that ethos against them.
Human rights are good because I said so. Your (their, as in conservatives) view on human rights is wrong because I said so. Why is it right when I say it? Because I'm not conservative and that makes my beliefs more important and more correct than yours (theirs). And because you (they) don't agree that human rights are non-negotiable, you (they) are objectively bad and thus your (their) argument is now moot.
Now this doesn't exactly solve the problem and it is of course subject to the same systemic failures that conservativism has so lovingly adopted. But it should at least be able to fight back.